This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

You can like it just don’t try to make ka-ching on it: Menon

In what may be another sign of the apocalypse, the pop superstar sicced her lawyers on a small business in Texas this week.

In the complaint, filed in New York, three defendants are accused of “wilful trademark infringement,” “unfair competition,” “trademark dilution” and “a score of other statutory and common law violations” against “arguably one of the most famous musical artists and entrepreneurs in the world.”

Make no mistake: this is not a scare tactic. Beyoncé is not screwing around. She’s done with cease and desist orders, as is made clear by the ominous “DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL” stamped on court documents.

Soon after, and perhaps as a reflection of the scant legal resources available to those who hawk tank tops and novelty mugs online, Feyonce Inc. started a GoFundMe campaign. The clarion call was riddled with so many errors, it’s possible “Feyoncé” was a typo when the company formed: “We are asking for help in support of our legal fees which will be approximatly (sic) $400,000 from start to finish. We are fighting for our business, our trademark, and our livelyhood (sic).”

Article Continued Below

They even managed to misspell God’s name by signing off with, “Good Bless.”

Now the courts will decide if “Feyoncé” merchandise is a blatant attempt to capitalize on the fame of Beyoncé. To be sure, the font used on both official Beyoncé gear and Feyoncé garments is strikingly similar. Feyonce also isn’t doing itself any favours by selling a coffee mug that reads, “He Put A Ring On It,” which promptly conjures Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies.”

The company will argue “Feyoncé” is a street variation of “fiancée” and that’s the context for all ceramic sloganeering. They might point out Beyoncé has no trademark on Feyoncé. They could even tell a jury there is no real human named “Feyoncé” on the payroll who is roaming Houston in stilettos and stockings, belting out “Irreplaceable” in mall parking lots as a Jay Z impostor applauds.

But even if they do all this, I fear they will soon be selling moonshine.

(And they’ll probably name their new company Dack Janiels.)

No, there is no real sympathy for Feyonce Inc. By Friday afternoon, the GoFundMe campaign had raised exactly zero dollars, which means Beyoncé’s daughter Blue Ivy has more than enough in her piggy bank to destroy these maverick cup-slingers.

Still, shouldn’t we at least be concerned about the dark precedent that comes when celebrities are able to sue anyone and anything that merely sounds like their name?

What’s next? Will Justin Bieber commence proceedings against Rieber? For all we know, there are millions of subsea enthusiasts who love the company’s marine vessels. If these people band together on social media and call themselves Reliebers, this could prove very confusing for Bieber’s own tween army, not to mention MLB relievers and fans of another Rieber that makes kitchen products.

Beyoncé could trigger an epidemic of bizarre suits: Will January Jones sue the Gregorian calendar? Will Iggy Azalea demand a court injunction on rhododendron shrubbery? Will Dwayne Johnson seek damages from Newfoundland and Labrador for using “The Rock” as a nickname?

Celebrities have always protected their own names. But now they’re branching out with esoteric trademark requests, trying to lock down neologisms, homonyms and even common phrases. Taylor Swift is seeking a trademark on “Nice to Meet You, Where You Been?” I have elderly relatives who say this to me three times a month.

The weird part is these legal showdowns never go the other way. Beyoncé’s nicknames include Bey, JuJu and Queen B? In that partial list alone, there is brazen overlap with Ottoman governors, French amulets and the late Beatrix of the Netherlands. Why is it fine for Lindsay Lohan to sue E-Trade for a TV commercial in which a “milkaholic” baby is simply called “Lindsay,” but then M&M can’t take on Eminem, even though his foul rhymes are way more of a brand threat to sugary treats than a $29.99 pink sweatshirt is to Beyoncé’s global empire that in one week probably clears more than Feyonce Inc. has ever made?

We are living in a sharing economy. Surely we can find a way for music superstars and kitsch capitalists with questionable creativity to coexist without lining the pockets of lawyers. I’d like to end by quoting philosophy from a few Beyoncé songs, but that now seems like a dodgy prospect.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com